ML20211M322
| ML20211M322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1999 |
| From: | Feigenbaum T NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP. (NAESCO) |
| To: | Borchardt R NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| References | |
| NYN-99080, NUDOCS 9909090084 | |
| Download: ML20211M322 (6) | |
Text
,
j ppz i,
~1 North
' Nerth Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Bo7 300
' Ys# Atlantic sorcot,xii O3874 0 ;-
(603) JM-9521 The Northeast Utilities System September 2,1999 NYN-99080 Ref.: AR#99011705 99NRC0025 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Mr. Richard W. Borchardt, Director Office of Enforcement One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Seabrook Station Reply to Notice of Violation North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) provides in the enclosure its reply to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty regarding an alleged discrimination issue as described in a Notice of Violation dated August 3,1999.
Should you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Mr. James M. Peschel, Regulatory Compliance Manager, at (603) 773-7194.
Very truly yours, NORTli ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.
M Ted C. Feigenbaufn Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer i l f[Dl
/
. O.1 l
l 9909090084 990902 I
l PDR ADOCK 05000443-l 0
PDR j
c
n A
- Mr. Richard W. Borchardt -
IJnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYN-99080 / Page 2, L
l' cc:
H. J. Miller, NRC Region I Administrator J. T. Ilarrison, NRC Project Manager, Project Directorate 1-2 R. K. Lorson, NRC Senior Resident Inspector United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001' l
l I
1 I
1 l
i i
i
t h
0 e
8 b
e i
ENCLOSURE TO NYN-99080 l
Reply to a Notice of Violation and Proposed Irnposition of Civil Penalty (NRC Office of Investigations Report 1-98-005)
The following provides North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's (North Atlantic) reply to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty regarding an alleged discrimination issue as described in a Notice of Violation dated August 3,1999.
Restatement of the Violation 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits, in part, discrimination by a Commission licensee or a contractor of a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities.
Discaimination incindes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and priNeges of einnbyment. The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reprtirs 9f safny concerns by an employee to his employer.
Contrary to the above, on serv 16 998, a licensee contractr r discriminated against a contractor electrician due to the employer's involvement in a protec ed activity. Specifically, a contractor electrician was selected for a layoff on January 16,1998 due, at least in part, to the fact that he had raised a concern to a licensee Quality Control inspecr on Jammrv 7,1998, regarding a wiring discrepancy in the control panel of the control building air-cono;iioning (CBA) system, a safety related system.
This violation is classified at Severity Level Ill (Supplement VII).
Civil Penalty - $55,000 Reply to the Violation We do not contest the violation. However, we are not aware of any information, other than the l
contract electrician's allegation, that suggests that the electrician was discriminated against or i
that the reduction in force (RIF) was motivated in any way by protected activity. As illustrated l
by the actions we took to preclude the perception of discrimination when we identified this l
concern during the course of the electrician's exit interview, North Atlantic takes the health of the Seabrook Station safety conscious work environment very seriously. However, in this case, we believe that the objective and factual evidence do not support the violation. Notwithstanding, in order to bring this issue to closure in an expeditious manner, we do not contest this violation.
We believe there is substantial objective evidence to conclude that the termination of the electrician was based on legitimate business reasons. As described during the June 2,1999 predecisional enforcement conference, the reduction in force was consistent with existing labor practices and the general industry approach regarding contract labor forces. The reduction in force was routine in nature and was based upon changes in work scope and skill sets of the
-workers. Other contract workers outside of the electrician's work unit had also been selected for the same reduction in force. Additional information was provided regarding the reasons why the Page1of3 L
~
1 electrician was selected for the reduction in force in detail at the predecisional enforcement conference, and we will not repeat it here.
Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken and Corrective Steps Thu Will be Taken As described above, we fully support the need for a healthy safety conscious work environment.
This is illustrated by the comprehensive actions we took after identifying the circumstances of this situation, which we believe had the potential of creating a chilling effect. Specifically, we:
Conducted a prompt review of the layoff de,;ision to determine the relevant facts; Requested that William's Power Co;poration (WPC) reinstate the contract electrician and e
that he be mt.de whole for any lost time. This action was implemented by WPC; Requcsted that WPC meet with all electrical supervision and craft to explain what happened e
and what would be happening. This action was implemented by WPC; Recommended that WPC improve the quality of documentation supporting personnel actions.
e This action was implemented by WPC; and, Recommended that WPC reinforce its commitment to a safety conscious work environment
=
to its entire Seabrook Station workforce. This action was implemented by WPC.
As presented during the predecisional enforcement conference, the testimony of the contract electrician's co-workers demonstrates that no chilling affect was created by either this supervisor or this issue. We nonetheless took additional actions to enhance ongoing initiatives to assure a safety conscious work environment, which included:
Designating a manapr to be responsible for prosiding additional management oversight of e
safety conscious work environment issues; Inisting an assessment of the safety conscious work environment against attributes derived from NRC policies. This assessmem :onfirmed a healthy safety conscious work environment and made a number of recommendations for enhancements; Implementing the recommendations from the safety conscious work environment assessment by:
Clarifying management expectations for the use of the Adverse Condition Report (ACR) system; Upgrading the Employee Allegation Resolution (EAR) Program; e
Prov: ding enhanced training on safety cor.scious work environment issues to site e
supervisors, including contractor supervisors; Perfonning surveys to monitor and confirm our efforts are successful in maintaining a safety conscious work environment.
Collectively, these efforts have been effective in allowing us to continuc to foster the principals of a healthy safety conscious work environment where employees and contractors are encouraged to raise questions and concerns.
Page 2 of 3 I
[
We, fully understand that we have been issued this notice of violation and civil penalty as a result
..of actions allegedly conducted by contract personnel. working on our site, and that there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on.the part of any North Atlantic personnel. We also believe that North Atlantic's actions to address this concern, once it was identified by our Employee
~ Allegation Resolution program, were prompt, proper, and comprehensive. Nonetheless, we recognize that as the licensee we are ultimately responsible for the actions of all personnel employed at Seabrook Station, including contractors. Accordingly, we continue to reinforce with all personnel,- including' the contract workforce, our policies, programs,. expectations, and responsibilities tha+ support a safety conscious work environment.
Date When Full Compliance Will be' Achieved We are currently in' full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7, and we will continue to be vigilant in maintaining and enhancing our safety conscious work environment to ensure that employees feel free to raise issues without fear of retaliation.
Statement as to Payment of the Civil Penalty a
Payment'for the civil penalty has been made via wire transfer to the USNRC at TREAS NYC/CTR, Account #31000001 as'of the date of this letter.
Page 3 of 3